This is easily blamed on the shutdown, but it isn't that simple: Falcon Heavy static fire has been postponed numerous times. On Tuesday (Jan 16th), it was cancelled once again, but with no new target test date. That indicates that SpaceX is still working on the rocket/pad.
I didn't find information on when they'd be ready again, but blaming a delay on Falcon Heavy's static fire test on the Government Shutdown is only half the truth.
SpaceX had activities planned for Sunday and Monday which have been canceled. New rockets and new launch pads (2/3 of the booster fueling equipment is new) are always like this; the first shuttle flight sat on the pad from December through April. It's very tedious for the range people because both fueling the rocket (wet dress rehearsal) and fueling and static firing it are dangerous events that require exclusion zones.
Every time they've cancelled the static fire, it's for a reason they've found not to do it. It's small, incremental steps and they knew it would take this many to get there.
The point is that with the government shut down they cannot continue to make those incremental steps anymore. It's a shame because today could have been the last of those little steps. We'll find out when the elected officials stop acting like children I suppose.
They did go through with a Wet Dress Rehearsal on Saturday, though, which already validates many things just prior to engine ignition. So if they were confident to continue with a static fire on Monday and there were no other issues known I'd say it's fair to blame it on the shutdown. Of course, more issues could arise during the test, but we won't know now.
Space-X was supposed to be building their own launch facility in Brownsville, TX, and it was supposed to be open now, but it's still just a vacant lot. They brought in some tracking antennas and some dirt fill; that's it.[1]
They're doing soil surcharging, so that's intentional. Don't want the castle sinking into the swamp (it's on 300+ feet of silt[1]).
The steps for soil surcharging are:
1. Pile extra dirt on top of your fill.
2. Wait a sufficient amount of time (usually months/years; it's important to wait long enough[2]) as the dirt compresses and squeezes out water.
3. Remove the extra dirt (also important[2]), and build your heavy structure on top. Now the pre-loaded ground underneath won't settle, because it already did that.
At their current rate of launches it probably just doesn't make any sense to put a lot of resources into it.
There has been upgrades in automation for the ranges last year which allow a higher frequency of launches. Plus they started launching again from their second Cape Canaveral pad.
I read that even with their own facility they would still be affected by a shutdown.
Apparently the soil there kind of sucks for heavy construction, so they have to put a bunch of material on top and wait for it to compact before they can start properly building out the facilities.
I find this article very frustrating. What do they even mean by "key members of the civilian workforce"? I wish they'd include examples of what kind of people aren't working. Since I have absolutely no connection to this industry, I have no way of understanding the impact of a government shutdown on the space industry. Why is it considered reasonable or unreasonable that they halt certain space-related activities due to a government shutdown?
> Why is it considered reasonable or unreasonable that they halt certain space-related activities due to a government shutdown?
I don't think anyone's opinion on whether it's reasonable or not really matters for this article. The fact is that they have no budget from which to pay people who operate all the things at the space centre, so they aren't working. I don't think it's any more complicated than that is it? What more could they say?
I would imagine the launch requires the participation of civil servants from NASA who I assume all the range safety people work for and I assume they use the coast guard to keep boats away from the danger zone two.
If no on is getting paid, they aren't going into work, simple as that. This can be anyone. Fire personnel, security, gate guards, flight-line / launch pad techs & engineers, anyone. Most civilian companies barely function if the office manager is out of the building. The launch pad is private property with a ton of personnel, they can't just launch without the workers.
So, is SpaceX now eligible for contract-breach money from the government for this delay? I assume SpaceX 'rents' the facility at KSP from the government. If that facility shuts down, then the government isn't upholding their part of the deal with SpaceX.
Say, as a company I had a deal where I rent an office, and the owner of the office decides for 2+ days I have no access to my office, because one-sided reasons, I can claim lost revenue from the owner, right?
These types of things are almost certainly written into the contracts. A government shutdown is not the only reason that SpaceX might temporarily not be able to use the facilities the way it wants.
Watched the video on the page demoing the falcon heavy concept. The real pictures don’t have the water tower at the launch site like the concept video. Is there some reason the water tower was in the demo design but not the real thing ... — maybe the water tower is mobile and only in place during an actual launch? Or is this closer to a case where somebody thought the water tower would look cool so they put it in the demo video ...?
The water tower is just further away, that's why you don't see it in the images. It was still there during their most recent launch from LC-39A: https://youtu.be/CNRTNxZSPhE?t=2m20s
When eventually launched, both boosters and the first stage are designed to return to earth, landing upright for reuse.
That this seems entirely feasible is a testament to how far SpaceX has moved the industry forward (and signifies that they are going to have a huge lead over any competitors).
It's not exactly a new idea. The boosters on the Russian Shuttle equivalent were designed to glide back for reusability in the 70s and 80s, but it's amazing the lack of momentum pushing these ideas forward languished in the space tech arena until SpaceX showed up.
Static fire was planned for today. Date for an actual launch hasn't been set yet, because a successful static fire (or several) has to take place before that. SpaceX is taking their time to extensively ground test this one, because the Falcon Heavy has never flown before, and is a significantly more complex rocket than the proven Falcon 9 (27 engines need to ignite at launch vs. 9, plus the booster attachments have never been tested before).
I'm thinking losing a billion dollar spy satellite might play a factor here. Also the timing of the US government shutdown couldn't have been more damaging.
Government is normally getting in the way or at least slowing down the process of innovation. Hopefully that doesn't happen here at to much a cost to SpaceX and the U.S. tax payers.
Falcon Heavy is a vehicle that uses a heavily modified Falcon 9 first stage in the middle, and has two more-or-less standard Falcon 9 first stages as strap-on boosters. (These first stages are sometimes called "cores".)
The side cores for this flight are reused Falcon 9 first stages, while the center core is new. Falcon Heavy center cores are structurally reinforced, and hence are different enough from Falcon 9 that you can't reuse one as the other; whereas converting between Falcon 9 first stage and Falcon Heavy side booster just involves moving around some external hardware.
The government has done good work on this issue - it's bootstrapped a market for launches using its purchasing power in military launches and ISS resupply contracts, while actively working to preserve a competitive environment and avoid monopolies. It also provides essential services like range safety and airspace management; what's getting in SpaceX's way is the lack of government.
The government built and runs the range on which they're testing. SpaceX is free to finish building their launch site in Texas and launch from there in the future. Sometimes government slows down innovation but in terms of both public and commercial space NASA has mostly been a force for speeding up and enabling innovation.
tl;dr: Shutting down the government gives credence to those who base part of their political programme on "government is evil lol", when really they just want less regulation on behalf of wealthy donors -- a fundamentally corrupt bargain.
Government is a big reason SpaceX is where it is in the first place. They used government facilities on Kwajalein to launch their first five rockets, and have used government facilities in Florida and California to launch all the ones since. NASA’s CRS contract paid for a substantial part of the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon.
If SpaceX had built their own launch facilities instead of using the government’s, they wouldn’t be beholden to the shutdown like this.
This is the first launch of their heavy rocket according to the article so nothing to recycle yet. The government is one of spacex’s biggest customers.
[+] [-] mikejb|8 years ago|reply
I didn't find information on when they'd be ready again, but blaming a delay on Falcon Heavy's static fire test on the Government Shutdown is only half the truth.
[+] [-] greglindahl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|8 years ago|reply
The point is that with the government shut down they cannot continue to make those incremental steps anymore. It's a shame because today could have been the last of those little steps. We'll find out when the elected officials stop acting like children I suppose.
[+] [-] ygra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rebelgecko|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andygates|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/spacex-progress-...
[+] [-] schiffern|8 years ago|reply
They're doing soil surcharging, so that's intentional. Don't want the castle sinking into the swamp (it's on 300+ feet of silt[1]).
The steps for soil surcharging are:
1. Pile extra dirt on top of your fill.
2. Wait a sufficient amount of time (usually months/years; it's important to wait long enough[2]) as the dirt compresses and squeezes out water.
3. Remove the extra dirt (also important[2]), and build your heavy structure on top. Now the pre-loaded ground underneath won't settle, because it already did that.
[1] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/countdown-to-liftoff/
[2] http://www.straits-engineers.com/publications_pdf/publicatio...
edit: pictures of the site https://imgur.com/a/0OXkB
[+] [-] robryan|8 years ago|reply
There has been upgrades in automation for the ranges last year which allow a higher frequency of launches. Plus they started launching again from their second Cape Canaveral pad.
I read that even with their own facility they would still be affected by a shutdown.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ygra|8 years ago|reply
It's ongoing.
[+] [-] isostatic|8 years ago|reply
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2018/01/21/space-star...
[+] [-] spike021|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|8 years ago|reply
I don't think anyone's opinion on whether it's reasonable or not really matters for this article. The fact is that they have no budget from which to pay people who operate all the things at the space centre, so they aren't working. I don't think it's any more complicated than that is it? What more could they say?
[+] [-] walshemj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nosequel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dayaz36|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fern12|8 years ago|reply
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough...
Sorry, I know it's not that detailed.
[+] [-] nomercy400|8 years ago|reply
Say, as a company I had a deal where I rent an office, and the owner of the office decides for 2+ days I have no access to my office, because one-sided reasons, I can claim lost revenue from the owner, right?
[+] [-] dEnigma|8 years ago|reply
For those unaware: KSP = Kerbal Space Program, a video game about space exploration
[+] [-] giarc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Consultant32452|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breatheoften|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ygra|8 years ago|reply
However, the water tower is there, as you can see here: https://twitter.com/wsm1/status/953099809803485184.
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russdill|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LC39A_and_LC39B.jpg
[+] [-] imron|8 years ago|reply
That this seems entirely feasible is a testament to how far SpaceX has moved the industry forward (and signifies that they are going to have a huge lead over any competitors).
[+] [-] ghostcluster|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsbartram|8 years ago|reply
https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...
[+] [-] freecodyx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billysielu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dayaz36|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olex|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|8 years ago|reply
How does Congress stay in session during a shutdown? Where does electricity in federal buildings come from if the Federal govt can't pay for it?
[+] [-] DaniFong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwaai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw1010|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mholt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsbartram|8 years ago|reply
They have in the past.
https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...
Government is normally getting in the way or at least slowing down the process of innovation. Hopefully that doesn't happen here at to much a cost to SpaceX and the U.S. tax payers.
[+] [-] azernik|8 years ago|reply
The side cores for this flight are reused Falcon 9 first stages, while the center core is new. Falcon Heavy center cores are structurally reinforced, and hence are different enough from Falcon 9 that you can't reuse one as the other; whereas converting between Falcon 9 first stage and Falcon Heavy side booster just involves moving around some external hardware.
The government has done good work on this issue - it's bootstrapped a market for launches using its purchasing power in military launches and ISS resupply contracts, while actively working to preserve a competitive environment and avoid monopolies. It also provides essential services like range safety and airspace management; what's getting in SpaceX's way is the lack of government.
[+] [-] Robin_Message|8 years ago|reply
Citation needed, especially as I'll just note we're using a website, many innovative technical elements of which were government funded.
[+] [-] Symmetry|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neolefty|8 years ago|reply
Here's an opinion piece from WaPo this morning on the subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-buy-the-spin-go...
tl;dr: Shutting down the government gives credence to those who base part of their political programme on "government is evil lol", when really they just want less regulation on behalf of wealthy donors -- a fundamentally corrupt bargain.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
If SpaceX had built their own launch facilities instead of using the government’s, they wouldn’t be beholden to the shutdown like this.
[+] [-] pmorici|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|8 years ago|reply